Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
61 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Federal System
|
- The US district courts are the trial levels (witnesses and evidence; where initial filing of cases take place.)
o How many different judicial districts are there? There are 94. What does that mean? There are most states that have more than one. Michigan has two: eastern and western. Lansing is in the western court system. o Venue: means place of the trial. Venue analysis figures out which particular district to file your claim. - The circuit courts of appeal are organized geographically. There are 13. There is the D.C. circuit and there is the Federal Circuit- it deals with patents and international trade. This division is where the judicial courts are organized into different circuits. Michigan would be appealed to the 6th circuit - The US supreme court- the appeals are discretionary. They are at the writ of certiorari. It is at the discretion of the court to decide if they want to take those appeals. About 95% of those cases are not taken. |
|
|
State Systems
|
- Every state system has a trial court (there are circuit courts and district courts, and various other names used to describe, New York’s is the supreme court)
- There is also an intermediate right to appeal. There are some states such as Virginia that do not have this right of appeal. - There are supreme courts. New York’s court is called the court of appeals. - When can the U.S Supreme Court hear the case, if it deals with a federal issue. A number of the cases that we read or appeals from supreme state decisions. This deals with precedent. Or Stare Dicises the decisions of the higher level courts are the ones that must be followed. Setting out the “law of the land.” |
|
|
Personal Jurisdiction
A. In Personam |
1. Physical Presence
P v. Neff- a state cannot assert in personam jurisdiction over a D unless D was personally served with process in the state, or voluntarily appeared in court. State may exercise jurisdiction over the D's property, even if the property is not related to the action, if the property is located in the courts jurisdiction. |
|
|
In Personam
|
Personal service on the D within the state
|
|
|
Pure in Rem
|
you are seeking a judgment with respect to the rights of the property against the whole world. Example, a state entity for condemnation against a property vis a vi the whole world. (rare, fairly limited)
|
|
|
Quasi in Rem
Type 1 |
a. Type one- is a situation where the property is at stake in the litigation. Two people who claim that a piece of property. It only matters between the two of them, not the rest of the world. It only determined the rights between the two litigants. The focus of the litigation is the property.
|
|
|
Quasi in Rem
Type 2 |
b. Type two- type that is talked about in P v. Neff the property is completely unrelated to the lawsuit. It serves an attachment that causes the person to come to the state and defend that actions. The person placing the attachment can get a judgment up to the value of the property. Simply a mechanism
|
|
|
Momentary Presence
|
Jurisdiction may be asserted over any person entering the state for even a brief moment such as person's passing through or flying over in a plane
|
|
|
Domicile
|
a court has in personam jurisdiction over an individual though the person is not physically within the jurisdiction if that person was domicied within the courts jurisdiction
Determined by 1. Party's intent to permantly locate there 2. An affirmative act expressing such intent Only one domicil per person |
|
|
Consent
|
a court may render a binding enforceable judgment against a party who consents to the jurisdiction of the court even if the court would not have had jurisdiction over the individua absent his consent.
|
|
|
Express Consent
|
1) Defendant stipulates courts jurisdiction in advance of litigation
2)Specified in a contract 3) Parties in a contract appoint and in-state agent to accept process. 4) an appearance or filing a motion |
|
|
Divorce?
|
Each state has the power to decide the citizenship of its citizens. If a citizen in a state is getting a divorce or changing their status the court they live in has automatic jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Implied Consent
|
State statutes may specify that persons engaging in certain activities wil impliedly consent to that state's jurisdiction
|
|
|
Motorist Statute
|
implied consent to jurisdiction upon any motorist operating a vehice within the state (Hess v. Pawloski)
|
|
|
Jurisdiction over a corporation
|
A corporation is subject to the jurisdiction of the state in which it is incorporated
|
|
|
Fine line distinction for corporations
|
For in personam jurisdiction, a corporation is resident in the state in which it is incorporated. For federal diversity purposes, a corporation is considered resident in both its state of incorporation and the state where it maintains it principal place of business. (UNLIKE an individual, a corporation wil not fall under a state's jurisdiction by the mere presence within the state of a corporate employee or officer)
|
|
|
Minimum Contacts Rule
|
International Shoe- in order to subject a D to inpersonam jurisdiction in a state where the person is neither domiciled or present. There much be certain minimum contacts between the D and the state that maintainence of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
|
|
|
Two Steps to minimum contacts rule
|
i. Does D have minimum contacts in the state
ii. Will asserting jurisdiction comply with traditiona notions of fair play and justice |
|
|
Hanson and McGee
|
1. Jurisdiction may not be invoked when a D's contact with a forum is negligible and not purposeful
2. A D's activities in the forum may subject the D to personal jurisdiction, even if sporadict or a single act, as long as the action arises from that single act |
|
|
Res Judicata
|
bars relitigation of a defense of lack of personal jurisdiction when the defendant specially appears to litigate the jurisdictional issue and that issue is fully litigated.
They should have continued the direct attack. Or they should have let it default and follow through with a collateral attack. |
|
|
"Special Appearance"
(Traditional View in Pennoyer) |
since presence is one way of asserting jurisdiction over a party, without special appearance, any appearanc ein court, even to challange jurisdiction would invite a court to assert jurisdiction over that party. In special appearance a person only challanges jurisdiction. If sucessful case dismissed. If fail that party is still present to challenge the merits of the case.
|
|
|
"Special Appearance"
(Modern Approach) |
Special appeareance has been superseded by federal and other courts. D may not challenge jurisdiction by filing a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction without being subject to jurisdiction for filing the motion. Also, many courts would allow special appearance for in rem and quasi in rem actions.
|
|
|
Collateral Attack
|
a Defendant defaulting on an action may collaterally attack a default judgement asserted in another jurisdiction on the grounds that the first action was asserted in a forum without proper jurisdiction.
|
|
|
"General Apperance"
|
if D does more than argue for in personam, if she asserts an additional defense, or i some states mereley makes a motion for coninuance of proceedings she is deemed to make a general appearance, which subjects her to in personam jurisdiction.
However, in personam along with notice to remove the case to federal court does not constitute a general appearance |
|
|
To contest in rem or quasi in rem what can a person do?
|
faces the problem of limiting her potential liability to the value of the property attached.
1. In some states, any appearance, even simple to contest jurisdiction, may convert into one in personam. 2. Others, defending on the merits of the underlying claim opens the D to in personam jurisdiction. Example, (Shaffer v. Heitner) D either submit to in personam jurisdiction or forfeit the property. 3. Other states have limited appearance |
|
|
"Limited Appearance"
|
permits her to appear and defend without facing liability beyond the value of the property attached.
|
|
|
Federal Rule 12
|
abolishes the distinction between general and special appearance by allowing the D to raise several defenses simultaniously with an objection to personal jurisdiction. pg 315
|
|
|
What did international shoe bring to the table?
|
- instead of p v. neff which says it is there? IShoe says "is it fair?"
- To get an impersonam judgement a D must have certain minimum contacts to constitute “fair play.” Are there any exceptions that say that it is not going to exist? If there are no contacts, ties or relations between the D and the state. The court says the 14th amendment can not make a binding judgment in which the state has no contacts, ties or relations in the state. What is the rational behind this MC standard? ** It is the notion of reciprocity** middle of page 46. To the extent that a corporation exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state, it enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state, it enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state Rule: The courts of a state may exercise in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant where that defendant has “the minimum contacts with the forum state such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” |
|
|
5 Scenarios where that could be considered continuous and systematic in the state.
|
1. If the activities have not only been continuous and systematic but also give rise to liabilities to be sued on. (International Shoe)
2. Conversely, where the casual presence of the corporate agent or even his conduct of single or isolated items of activities in a sates in the corporation's behalf are not enought to subject it so suit on causes of action unconnected with the activities there. This would cause to big of a burden on the corporation. 3. There have been instances in which the continuous corporate operations within a state were thought so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against it on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities (General Jurisdiction) 4. Although the commission of some single or occassional act of the corporate agent in a state sufficient to impose an obligation or liability on the corporation has not been thought to confer upon the state authority to enforce it. 5. Other acts because of their nature and quality and the circumstances of their commission may be deemed sufficient to render the corporation liable to suit. (Hess v. Pawloski) Establishes a legal ficition of consent were consent is implied from its presence in the state throught the acts of its authorized agents. |
|
|
Under international shoe how did the courts define minimum contacts?
|
If you establish Minimum contacts then you have established Fair Play and Substantial Justice. What we are focused on what is the nature of the claim, the activity of the claim and the nature of the claim and the state.
M/C = FPSJ |
|
|
Shaffer V. Heitner
|
Takes international shoe and expands it to include minimum contacts on the individual.
They tried to get Quasi in Rem type two, attaching property that is unrealated to the lawsuit. They attached stock and stock options owned by Greyhound |
|
|
What is the Difference Between Shaffer and International Shoe?
|
o Not brought in a court of equity.
o The initial Argument of the P’s they say it was unimportant because they attached the property. o D argument says that we don’t have minimum contacts with the state. Site international shoe. The basis of international shoe is in personam. o The argument is we want q in rem. Why does that matter? The response is that International shoe minimum contacts does not matter because we want Q in Rem. This is not an in personam case. It is a quasi in rem case. o What did the supreme court say? Shoe should apply to Q in Rem forms of jurisdiction as well. That is why this is a “bredth of application case.” The standard that must be met is international shoe’s minimum contacts rule o What is the ultimate conclusion of the court? All assertions of state-court jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the standards set forth in International Shoe and its progeny. o It is a very practical rational should also apply to the in rem. |
|
|
When do you use Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendement?
|
If you don't have PJ it makes it non enforceable nd the issue becomes full faith and credit clause in article 4.
The DPC operates to limit the power of a state to assert in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident D. |
|
|
What is the Full faith and Credit Clause?
|
makes the valid in personam judgement of one State enforceable in all other States.
Once it has been determined by a court that has proper jurisdiction that the D is a debtor of the P, there would seem to be no unfairness in allowing an action to realize on that debt in a State where the D has property, whether or not that State would have jurisdiction to determine the existence fo the debt as an original matter. |
|
|
What was the outcome of Shaffer?
|
Majority:
They did not find personal jurisdiction because They found that there was no jurisdiction. How did they reach that conclusion? The court does not think that the stock was not the focus of the claim. Therefor it does not establish sufficient contacts. Mere ownership of property does not conclusively establish jurisdiciton Dissenting: Look at contact in the state. State is min contacts not best contacts. So even tho better contacts with Az and Org. Doesn't mean you have no contacts in Del.Crucial to the Dissent is the fact that the appellants voluntarily associated themselve with the state of Del "invoking the benefits and protections of its laws" So they use law of Del and thats enought contacts. |
|
|
McGee and Hanson Cases:
What contacts can we consider? |
Law from Hanson: There must be some act by which the D purposefully avails itself to the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws (intl shoe)
|
|
|
What is the Highlight of Hanson Case:
|
Reciprocity- Purposeful contacts by D directed toward that state. It MUST be that D is Purposefully directing it's activites toward that state, so we can say they are purosefully avialing themselves to the benefits and protections of those state laws.
Unilateral Activity- The unilateral activie of those who claim some relationship with a non resident D cannot satisfy the requirments of contact with the forum state. |
|
|
Why was there no Jurisdiction in the Hanson Case?
|
There was no relationship between D and Fl, until D moved to Florida, the trustee formed no acts in Fl, it did not direct it's activities toward Fl. Have not contacts to put in bucket that matter to acquire j'd over D in Fl.
Because it was a unilateral the people did not purposely avail themselves to contacts with the state. They were created by the purposeful unilateral acts by claiming a relationship with the contacts. The D does not have control over that. They are doing that because of her decision to move out to Florida. |
|
|
Hanson in comparison to McGee.
|
In McGee the contact was born out of a contract that was purposeful between the state of claifornia and D. . The contract bore a substantial relationship to the state where the suit has been brought. There is a relationship between that claim and the state. When we define those minimum contacts what are those that we can actually consider? The D’s purposeful contacts with the state!!! Also, the state of california has an interest when you fail to pay on policies solicited in California
|
|
|
What do McGee and Hanson Give us?
|
Narrowing of International Shoe:
HOw to define contacts to be considered 1.) have to be purposeful act of D 2.)Cannot be purposeful act of others with the D |
|
|
World Wide Volkswagon
|
What standard does the Supreme Court say it is applying? International Shoe and the minimum contacts rule. Conveyance and the territorial to protect states as co-equal sovereigns.
It describes these functions in two distinct terms: the first is reasonableness or fairness. The D’s contacts with the forum state must be such that maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” |
|
|
What does WWVW say must be there to determine if jurisdiciton would be reasonable?
|
The court lays out (1) the burden on the D- the court says we will balance this case against other appropriate factors. (2) The Forum State’s interest in adjudicating the dispute . (3) The P’s interest in obtaining affective convenint relief. (4) Third the court says we look at the interstate judicial’s interest. (5) Lastly there is the shared interest in the different states in furthering its social policies. Have made it clear that state lines do not matter.
*** Ct says: even though we meet the 4 considereatinos of reasonableness in order to exercise j'd over a D, Dpc may sometimes act to divest the State of it's power to render a valid jdmt if you haven't shown the existenc eof MC first. |
|
|
What is the difference between the Majority and the Dissenting opinions in WWVW
|
Majority: Prior case M/C = FP and SJ, This case Majority says M/C and (?) FPSJ
(i) first establish M/C and if can't do that, then don't even look for FPSJ (reasonableness) (ii) There is potential to look beyond MC (iii) Can't just look at convenience, first and foremost must establish MC between D and forum state Dissenting: Brennan minority M/C or FPSJ His test would have been that significant contacts between the different parties. It it enough that there is enough claim in the state. He is willing to accept reasonableness as a test. But is arguing for either or by showing sufficient contacts or by showing that it would be reasonable. Regardless if he has established minimum contacts or not. It we can see a state interest in that claim unless the D can show that it would be inconvenient as to what the D did not know about this case. |
|
|
Link between Hanson/ McGee to WV
|
(a) purposeful availment has to be on what the D has done DIRECTLY toward the state to make it predict that they could be sued there on that parties claim
(b) If you don't have direct you can also look for indirect contact through stream of commerece with the expectationn that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum state |
|
|
Why was there no jurisdiciton in World Wide Volkswagon?
|
Issue of Unilateral - Why was there no jurisdiction its' the P that established contacts in OK, not SeaWay or World Wide (defendants). The focus i son the D's acts not the P's so that is why they did not acq PJ over SW and WW
|
|
|
Under Volkswagon Predictability is focused on the D's Due Process Rights
|
(a) Must establish purposeful contacts of D with the state = basis for predictability (When a corp "purposefully avails itself of the privlidge of conducting activities within the forsum state it has clear notice that is it subject to suit there.
(b) it is important for Due process that the D's conduct and connection with the state are such that "he could reasonably anticipate being hauled into ct here" on this particular claim (C) prediction helps corporations know where they can be sued, so they can structure their bus to fit the Doctrine of MC (i.e. Purchase LIability insurance) |
|
|
Keeton and Calder: what do they bring to the table?
|
Both of these cases dealt with torts:
Cadler v. Jones: the court upheld jurisdiction in California against the editor and writer of an allegedly defamatory article about a California citizen. Both the writer and editor were from Florida. The article was written in Florida. However jurisdiction was established in California because the allegedly libelous story concerned the California activities of a California resident. There intentional, and allegedly tortuous, actions were expressly aimed at California. They knew that the brunt of that injury would be felt by respondent in the State in which she lives and works and in which the National Enquirer has the largest circulation. Under this circumstances, petitioners must “reasonably anticipate being haled into court there” to answer for the truth of the statements made in their article. Keeton: Keeton v. Huster Magazine- concerned a libel suit brought against Hustler mag in New Hampshire and nationwide. Brought it in New Hampshire because that is where the S of L had not run. Wanted damages for the injury she suffered in New Hampshire and nationwide. Supreme court upheld her personal jurisdiction, they explained that NH “has a Substantial Interest in cooperating with other States to provide a forum for efficiently litigating all issues and damages claims arising out of a libel in a unitary proceeding.” They did not hold that Hustler was subject to suit in New Hampshire on all possible causes of action. The court held “IN the instant case, respondent’s activities in the forum may not be so substantial as to support jurisdiction over a cause of action unrelated to those activities. But respondent is carrying on a part of its general business in New Hampshire, that is sufficient to support jurisdiction. |
|
|
What is the difference between Keeton and WWVW
|
- is that you are dealing with an intentional court. It is the purposeful availment where the courts talk about the purposefulness of the courts actions and the predictability of those courts actions that flow from that state. They purposefully directed the activity toward that state and thereful they had direct contact with that state. As a result they established the “EFFECTS” test
that ONLY applies with Intentional torts. 1st step – where will the effects of this activity be felt, 2-nd were will the effects affect this state, 3rd will the brunt of the harm be on a person from that state |
|
|
General Jurisdiction:
Helicopteros |
For GJ'd to exist ct says look at D having substantial, systematic and continuous contacts with state such they they can be sued on any claim, even those unrelated to activites or contacts with that state. Pure Gen J'd reasonableness is presumed so have to go to reasonableness. If don't find all three go to Spec and see if you have MC that way.
You MUST HAVE all three met in order to show predictability and To analyze every contact, if meet all three Hence M/C There are also issues of recipropcity |
|
|
Substantial
|
We are not just the quantity of the contacts. It has to be quality of the contacts. So when you think of the word substantial in relation to the overall operations of the company. For some companies, a million dollars worth of business in a state may be less than a drop in a bucket because they do a billions contacts a year. For substantial it needs to be put in the overall context of the business of the corporation.
|
|
|
Systematic
|
means that you are doing things in the state. You have an office in the state that means u have continuous contact but the office sits empty this would not be systematic
1. Conducting business activies 2. Daily Activities |
|
|
Continuous (uninterrupted)
|
1. Having office in the state
2. Employee's permanently based in the state 3. Ownership of Real Property in the State |
|
|
Brennan's Dissenting Opinion :
|
1. Sliding scale: Views Spec J's as
a) Claim arises out of OR b) Related to the contacts, activ's w/ the state i. Relates to, means show signifcant contacts but not enought for Gen J'd then show how claim can be characterized by a related to those contacts in more gen sense of the term, feels that the court should adopt a sliding scale b/c it is consistant with underlying notion of reciprocity. The more contacts that you have less they have to relate to the claim. 2. Arug is: That the crash took place becuase of the piolet and he was trained in texas. So it relates to those contats in TX. |
|
|
CONCEPTS SO FAR: UP to Helicopteros
|
Specific Jurisdiction requires that when the claim arises out of or relates to the contacts in the state, the contacts are the D’s purposeful contacts in the state. Pg 45- where jurisdiction has and has not been found.
General Jurisdiction is used when the claim does not arise from or relate to the defendan’ts activity in the forum. Substantial, systematic, continuous. Corporation where incorporated. Individual where they are domiciled. If we have some contacts we need to ask. Are there purposeful contacts? None? Then there is no personal jurisdiction. If we have purposeful contacts we need predictability it is a requirement for finding purposeful contacts. No? No jurisdictions. If the answer is SP is yes? What do we do? We have to use the ashi factors which are burger king and ashai. The idea is that you have to go through a progression. Identify purposeful contacts of the D. Apply General and S formula to those contacts. Are there substantial? Systematic Continuous contacts with the state. If that is met you have GJ and establishes the minimum contacts needs and reasonablness is presumes. If you don’t find General Jurisdiction go to Specific and try to articulate and arises out of argument. Form the P if you are really stuck and can’t make it ultimate fall back is the relates to argument. (since supreme court hasn’t recognized it yet) If not General or Specific the requirement of minimum contacts is not satisfied. |
|
|
Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Court
|
• Absent special legislation, a federal court has personal jurisdiction only if a state court in the state in which the federal court has personal jurisdiction.
• Rule 4 1(D) provides for jurisdiction when “authorized by a statute of the US.” Otherwise called nationwide service of process. These statutes permit the D to be served anywhere in the US and provide personal jurisdiction regardless of whether there would have been jurisdiction in any state court. • Rule 4 2(K) provides for personal jurisdiction in any federal court where o 1. The claim is based on federal law o 2. Jurisdiction is constitutional o 3. There is no state which would have personal jurisdiction |
|
|
Burger King Case:
|
Fed Ct. has same jurisdictional reach that the state Ct has for Personal Jurisdiction purposes. FRCP 4 K1 confines the jurisdictions reach of Fed Cts to the St in which they sit, except when either a specific fed statute or a St long arm statute authorizes L-A J'd.
o BC of 4k1a if you file in a fed court in Michigan the fed jurisdiction is the same as the state court o Brennan says that this a protection of the liberty interst o They would reasonably expect to be hailed into court there. How does he say that a notion of predictability is met when it comes to personal jurisdiction o Pg 77 that those contacts are so substantial and predictable that he should be sues on any claim being claimed against o It is predictable through our general and specific analysis |
|
|
How does Brennan say that the individuals purposefully availed themseves?
|
Look at all the circumstances surrounding the contractual agreement and all the dealings were in Miami. He knew he was dealing with Florida.
o We look at the pg 79 Burden on the D Forum State Interest P’s Interest Interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most effective relief Shared interest on several states o Under all of these criteria shows that Flordia could have specific jurisdiction. The inconvenience is not substantial enough to rise to a constitutional level. Reasonablness does not defeat jurisdiction. |
|
|
What is choice of law provisio?
|
o Where ever a lawsuit has been brought this substantive law would be brought. This is called a choice of law provisio- where ever the litigatin might be brought this is the law that is applied. Ex, Florida law in Michigan.
|
|
|
What is the Forum selection clause?
|
- a place that the parties had agreed on that is set forth in the K.
|
|
|
What is the points brought out by BK?
|
The court ties Predictability to Gen J'd and Spec J'd by the fair notice concept
|
|
|
What is the fair notice concept?
|
Where a forum seeks to assert SJ over an out-of-state D who has not consented to suit there, this "fair warning" req'mt is satisfied if the D has "purposefully directed" his activities at residents of the forum and the litigation results from alleged infurates that "arise out of or relate to those activites"
|
